Any surprising bumps up or down?

Trying to see if the USTA is leaning toward bumping up people or bumping down people. Last couple years there was a big attempt to bump people up. Several years before that there was an effort to bump people down.
One woman I know who played #1 singles on her 4.0 team and lost most of her matches, but won a few was bumped down. She was one of the best players on her team which consisted of all 4.0 players.
That seemed quite a bit different than the last couple of years where a record like that might have gotten you bumped up.
Also, the #2 singles player on our team was not bumped up despite being undefeated during the season. Last year the #2 singles player (different guy) was bumped up after being undefeated (though I was not, playing #1 singles and only losing a couple of matches)

Trying to see if the USTA is leaning toward bumping up people or bumping down people. Last couple years there was a big attempt to bump people up. Several years before that there was an effort to bump people down.
One woman I know who played #1 singles on her 4.0 team and lost most of her matches, but won a few was bumped down. She was one of the best players on her team which consisted of all 4.0 players.
That seemed quite a bit different than the last couple of years where a record like that might have gotten you bumped up.
Also, the #2 singles player on our team was not bumped up despite being undefeated during the season. Last year the #2 singles player (different guy) was bumped up after being undefeated (though I was not, playing #1 singles and only losing a couple of matches)

Is there is propensity toward bumping people down now?

Click to expand...

here's one surprising one and one inixplicable one.

A guy on our 4.5 spring team only played singles, probably 9 or 10 matches, all blowouts. Almost no one took more than 1 or 2 games a set against him. he lost his last match of the season to a 22yr old self-rated ringer who was just a couple of years out from being #1 ranked junior in the state. Lost that one 3 and 6. Thought for sure he'd get bumped to 5.0 but he wasn't. The kid who beat him was though.

Then a guy on our 9.0 mixed team who we brought on to play with our 5.0 girl, so he self rated at 4.0 the two of them went 2-1, one of those wins in the 3rd set breaker, the loss was a blowout. He didn't play spring so the computer only looked at those 3 matches. He was bumped up to 5.0! at the same time the girl was bumped down to 4.5, though she did lose a couple of other matches with a weaker 4.0. try to figure THAT one out

2 guys on my team played together almost every match, 10 matches total. One guy goes 9-1 playing with nobody else. The other guy goes 9-3, playing 2 other matches with other partners and loses them both. Guess who got the bump? Yep the guy who LOST the extra 2 matches.

From what I remember, all of the best singles players got bumped up, around 6 guys, including 2 guys that played mostly singles from one team that went to Nationals.

Overall 8-9 guys who played mostly doubles got bumped up too.

Again, because the one team went to Nationals they had 8 bump ups (?), which also probably affected other opponents chance to bump up.

My team finished 2nd best and we split with the team that went to Nationals 3-2 and 2-3, we had 4 bump ups.

The other 3 teams had: 1 bump up, 1 bump up, 2 bump up.

So overall, I thought it was ok. The team that advanced so far rightly had numerous bumps, our 4 had very good records and expected a bump, the other teams bumps generally seemed appropriate. No complaints, tho there were some others from our facility who I thought would get a bump but didn't.

2 guys on my team played together almost every match, 10 matches total. One guy goes 9-1 playing with nobody else. The other guy goes 9-3, playing 2 other matches with other partners and loses them both. Guess who got the bump? Yep the guy who LOST the extra 2 matches.

Click to expand...

Given they played the majority of their matches together, the key factor here would be where they started the year. The 9-1 guy must have been lower rated than the 9-3 guy, so when they won, because the algorithm effectively keeps the difference between their ratings the same, the 9-3 got "pushed" higher and would always be higher rated.

Additionally, the losses may have been to really good players, or the 9-3 guys partner may have been lower rated so they were expected to lose and the losses didn't really hurt is rating.

I thought it was odd that every singles match I lost last year was to a player who got the bump (one was DQed so I didn't officially lose that one) plus two of the players that I beat in singles (one of them 4 and 2) got bumped but I didn't.

A guy on our 4.5 spring team only played singles, probably 9 or 10 matches, all blowouts. Almost no one took more than 1 or 2 games a set against him. he lost his last match of the season to a 22yr old self-rated ringer who was just a couple of years out from being #1 ranked junior in the state. Lost that one 3 and 6. Thought for sure he'd get bumped to 5.0 but he wasn't. The kid who beat him was though.

Click to expand...

That sounds vaguely familiar. I went 7-1 in singles on my 4.5 team, winning in straight sets in all 7 wins, the closest being a 6-4, 6-4 win at Districts. The guy I lost to, I lost in a 3rd set breaker, and in all honesty should have won that match (had a match point and he pulled out a stab volley winner).

I checked and he's now a 5.0.

To be clear, I am NOT a 5.0, but a solid 4.5, but there is no way the guy I lost to is a 5.0. In some ways I feel bad for him. I regularly hit against 5.0 college players, and the guy I lost to will be lucky to get 1 or 2 games.

Given they played the majority of their matches together, the key factor here would be where they started the year. The 9-1 guy must have been lower rated than the 9-3 guy, so when they won, because the algorithm effectively keeps the difference between their ratings the same, the 9-3 got "pushed" higher and would always be higher rated.

Additionally, the losses may have been to really good players, or the 9-3 guys partner may have been lower rated so they were expected to lose and the losses didn't really hurt is rating.

Click to expand...

They were both new to USTA this year and playing in their rating levels. The 9-1 guy is a much stronger player, which is another reason this is surprising. He also did a designated tourney playing up a level, and went 2-1. For the other guy i guess the 2 extra losses somehow were enough to give him a slight edge in his dynamic rating.

Crispy, how the heck are you able to get that information? Are you a league coordinator? Is there a link on that wretched tennislink site?

Click to expand...

No, not part of the USTA. I just nerded it up a little. The usta site has an advanced search feature, so you can search by rating and region instead of jut by name. I just pulled all the norcal 4.5s into an excel file and ran a pivot table.

No, not part of the USTA. I just nerded it up a little. The usta site has an advanced search feature, so you can search by rating and region instead of jut by name. I just pulled all the norcal 4.5s into an excel file and ran a pivot table.

Click to expand...

I nerded up too. I'm a retired DA/DBA...but am just learning my way around Excel's pivot tables. Here are the results for the women in our metro area...and they mirror Crispy's. Lot of status quo...but more bump downs than what I seem to remember from the past.

Of the 535 2011-3.0s, 59 (11%) moved up, 16 (3%) moved down.
Of the 798 3.5s, 61 (~7%) moved up, 34 (4%) moved down.
Of the 467 4.0s, 26 (~5.5%) moved up, 32 (~8%) moved down.
Of the 142 4.5s, only 2 were moved up while 15 (10%+) were sent down.
Of the 23 5.0s, none were moved up and 2 (including one of our club teaching pros) were sent down.

Final breakdown looks like a darn near perfect bell curve and very little net change from (2011)

*None of those three women played any USTA "womens" in 2012...mostly...cause, as you can see, there's no one to play with. One of these lovely ladies is old enough for the new Adult+ categories and is the wife of a head pro (an accomplished 5.0 himself who, despite going to and competing well at Nationals...didn't get bumped.). LOL. As a couple, they remind me of the Agassi/Graf household.

I noticed yesterday in my section that a few people were bumped up from 3.0 to 3.5 benchmark. How does that happen (assuming I understand the term "benchmark" properly)?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

See schmke's description earlier in this thread. All it means is that they were a 3.0 whose team made it to playoffs (and they played some match, any match in the post-season). Just mentally separate the NTRP from the "Letter" after it. Except to the behind-the-scenes stats gurus, B...means little...except that a "Benchmark" (read: playoff player) cannot automatically appeal their rating the first year they receive it.

See schmke's description earlier in this thread. All it means is that they were a 3.0 whose team made it to playoffs (and they played some match, any match in the post-season). Just mentally separate the NTRP from the "Letter" after it. Except to the behind-the-scenes stats gurus, B...means little...except that a "Benchmark" (read: playoff player) cannot automatically appeal their rating the first year they receive it.

Click to expand...

I agree with AQ. "B" is not better than "C." All it means is that you were chosen as a ruler to measure others against. You could have been a "weak player" and still be a ruler.

See schmke's description earlier in this thread. All it means is that they were a 3.0 whose team made it to playoffs (and they played some match, any match in the post-season). Just mentally separate the NTRP from the "Letter" after it. Except to the behind-the-scenes stats gurus, B...means little...except that a "Benchmark" (read: playoff player) cannot automatically appeal their rating the first year they receive it.

"B" is not better than "C." All it means is that you were chosen as a ruler to measure others against. You could have been a "weak player" and still be a ruler.

Click to expand...

If you think about, it does actually make some sense. The "ruler" needs a start and stop point. New to an NTRP and still B...probably sets the bottom of that level...in that they were good enough to be on a team to go to playoffs and had a personal record to back up that collective success. A "B" that remains at-level, is likely to be the high end of that level (setting the top of the lower level)...in that they played well enough to be on a team that went to playoffs but didn't have the personal record to push them to the next level.

Not sure if I'm explaining that well but let's try with some names.

Able, Baker, Charlie and his Dog all play on a 3.5 team. They make the playoffs, all of them play at least one match in the post-season. ALL of them will be "B" players next year, regardless of their NTRP.

Able has a good season and wins in playoffs. He becomes a 4.0B.
Baker has a so-so season and wins in playoffs. He stays a 3.5, albeit a 3.5B.
Charlie has a so-so season and loses in playoffs. He's like Baker and stays a 3.5 but also with a B.
Dog had an awful season and loses in playoffs. He drops down to 3.0...but with the B tag...3.0B.

Now let's say Earl also played on this same 3.5 team but couldn't make the playoffs due to a prior obligation. He had a great season. It's very possible he'll also be bumped to 4.0...but he'd be a 4.0C.

Now, is Earl better than Able. Maybe, maybe not. But from the computer's perspective, it's easier to evaluate Able since he played opponents outside his region and, ostensibly, would be a better benchmark....against which to judge future opponents at the follow year's ratings computation, even if it's at the bottom end.

Clearly, however & from the computer's perspective, both Able and Earl are 4.0s. Baker and Charlie are 3.5s...probably at the upper end since they were good enough to play for a playoff-bound team (which is, after all, the sum of its parts).

Dog needed to move down...but again, is probably the top of his now lower NTRP...since he'd most recently played a level up.

If you think about, it does actually make some sense. The "ruler" needs a start and stop point. New to an NTRP and still B...probably sets the bottom of that level...in that they were good enough to be on a team to go to playoffs and had a personal record to back up that collective success. A "B" that remains at-level, is likely to be the high end of that level (setting the top of the lower level)...in that they played well enough to be on a team that went to playoffs but didn't have the personal record to push them to the next level.

Not sure if I'm explaining that well but let's try with some names.

Able, Baker, Charlie and his Dog all play on a 3.5 team. They make the playoffs, all of them play at least one match in the post-season. ALL of them will be "B" players next year, regardless of their NTRP.

Able has a good season and wins in playoffs. He becomes a 4.0B.
Baker has a so-so season and wins in playoffs. He stays a 3.5, albeit a 3.5B.
Charlie has a so-so season and loses in playoffs. He's like Baker and stays a 3.5 but also with a B.
Dog had an awful season and loses in playoffs. He drops down to 3.0...but with the B tag...3.0B.

Now let's say Earl also played on this same 3.5 team but couldn't make the playoffs due to a prior obligation. He had a great season. It's very possible he'll also be bumped to 4.0...but he'd be a 4.0C.

Now, is Earl better than Able. Maybe, maybe not. But from the computer's perspective, it's easier to evaluate Able since he played opponents outside his region and, ostensibly, would be a better benchmark....against which to judge future opponents at the follow year's ratings computation, even if it's at the bottom end.

Clearly, however & from the computer's perspective, both Able and Earl are 4.0s. Baker and Charlie are 3.5s...probably at the upper end since they were good enough to play for a playoff-bound team (which is, after all, the sum of its parts).

Dog needed to move down...but again, is probably the top of his now lower NTRP...since he'd most recently played a level up.

Does that help any?

Click to expand...

Good scenario and description AQ.

The one thing I'd add is that I "think" that Able, Baker, Charlie, and Dog becoming Bs causes them to be used as benchmarks for 2012 instead or as well as 2013, i.e. the benchmark part of the year-end rating has players that played against ABCD being adjusted based on how they did in their matches against ABCD or any other benchmark they played. I don't do any benchmark calculations in my estimated ratings in large part because I haven't fully figured out how the USTA does it, so any confirmation of this one way or the other would be great.

My budy hadn't lost a match at 4.5 playing #1 singles in a long time and was bumped up to 5.0. He then proceeded to lose two 5.0 singles matches and was bumped right back down. He also plays USTA Tournaments and win the majority he enters at singles. I have a hard time understanding how he got bumped back down.

I personally think that ratings should be more volatile. There are too many people that go 9-2 for 3 straight seasons without getting bumped up. If you win 80% of your matches in any one season, you should get bumped up. If you then go 2-8 at the higher level the next season, then you should get bumped back down. If you go 5-5, then that is your appropriate level. It just seems like there are too many people who just camp out at the higher end of their level for years, and then get all disappointed when they finally get bumped up, even though that should have happened years ago.

I personally think that ratings should be more volatile. There are too many people that go 9-2 for 3 straight seasons without getting bumped up. If you win 80% of your matches in any one season, you should get bumped up. If you then go 2-8 at the higher level the next season, then you should get bumped back down. If you go 5-5, then that is your appropriate level. It just seems like there are too many people who just camp out at the higher end of their level for years, and then get all disappointed when they finally get bumped up, even though that should have happened years ago.

Click to expand...

You are right that as constructed, the NTRP algorithm isn't terribly volatile and you generally have to really dominate at your level, happen to play very strong competition and win at your level, or play up in order to be bumped up.

About 1/3 of my 4.0 team (incl. me) got bumped up. But, I noticed a handful of other ladies in our league who also got bumped up, so at least in our part of the country, the competition was hot. All who got bumped deserved it, no surprises. There were some other good players who didn't get bumped, who must be right on the cusp.

In 2012, I only played mixed doubles and 6.5 combo doubles (but made it to the state finals in that one). They didn't review my standing at all. I still have the same computer rating with a 2011 date. Is that because they don't use mixed and combo doubles to re-rate?

In 2012, I only played mixed doubles and 6.5 combo doubles (but made it to the state finals in that one). They didn't review my standing at all. I still have the same computer rating with a 2011 date. Is that because they don't use mixed and combo doubles to re-rate?

If you don't play 3 gender specific matches from eligible leagues, but play enough mixed matches, you can get a mixed-exclusive rating, but I believe when you have a gender specific rating from the prior year, that still carries over instead and seems to be what happened with you.

If you don't play 3 gender specific matches from eligible leagues, but play enough mixed matches, you can get a mixed-exclusive rating, but I believe when you have a gender specific rating from the prior year, that still carries over instead and seems to be what happened with you.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I did notice that one of my teammates got a new 2012 "mixed exclusive" rating at the same level he was before.

I personally think that ratings should be more volatile. There are too many people that go 9-2 for 3 straight seasons without getting bumped up. If you win 80% of your matches in any one season, you should get bumped up. If you then go 2-8 at the higher level the next season, then you should get bumped back down. If you go 5-5, then that is your appropriate level. It just seems like there are too many people who just camp out at the higher end of their level for years, and then get all disappointed when they finally get bumped up, even though that should have happened years ago.

Click to expand...

I've said this for years but the USTA should go to a dynamic rating system. Where I live, there's a rating system called Tencap. They use it in a few other cities as well. It adjusts on the fly as you complete matches. It's kind of like a golf handicap. The lower the rating, the better the player. And they have divisions that encompass rating ranges. For instance...

The Men's Blue Division is for players rated between 22-28; which is typically a 4.5 level. If a 28 rated player plays a 22 rated player and wins 6-4, 6-4, their rating will go up accordingly and the losing player's rating will go down accordingly. Vice versa, if the 22 rated player wins, but let's say it's in three sets, their rating could still go down (because the match was close).

I've been playing Tencap for about 10 years and the system is far more accurate. And you can see exactly where you are relative to other players. This is one of the problems I see with the USTA's rating system. Nobody knows where they fall within their respective rating spectrum. I've been a 4.5 for years, but I have no idea where I am relative to other players.

One of the concerns with the Tencap system is that they thought it would encourage sandbagging to keep a rating where it is. But I've honestly never seen that happen.

I was a 3.5 self rate that got DQ'ed by end of summer and received 4.0 D rating. I played on both 3.5 and 4.0 teams, neither of which made it to playoffs. Just saw that my rating is now 4.0 B.

My 4.0 team this summer comprised of 8 3.5 women and 6 4.0 women. All the 4.0's were new bumps from previous year. Theses women have been playing together for years and dominated at 3.5, routinely going to states playoffs. They decided to move up as a team last year and not unexpectedly, lost a lot but we managed to end up in the middle of the pack by end of the season. I was surprised to see that all the 4.0s now got moved down to 3.5. I imagine that I'll have to look for a new 4.0 team next summer.

does the tri-level leagues matter about getting bup up or down? Asking because I played 4 matches at 4.5 all won ( one of them defoulted) plus I won a 4.0 tourney in January and I still are the same 4.0.
It does not really matter to me but I was just curious.

I've said this for years but the USTA should go to a dynamic rating system. Where I live, there's a rating system called Tencap. They use it in a few other cities as well. It adjusts on the fly as you complete matches. It's kind of like a golf handicap. The lower the rating, the better the player. And they have divisions that encompass rating ranges. For instance...

The Men's Blue Division is for players rated between 22-28; which is typically a 4.5 level. If a 28 rated player plays a 22 rated player and wins 6-4, 6-4, their rating will go up accordingly and the losing player's rating will go down accordingly. Vice versa, if the 22 rated player wins, but let's say it's in three sets, their rating could still go down (because the match was close).

I've been playing Tencap for about 10 years and the system is far more accurate. And you can see exactly where you are relative to other players. This is one of the problems I see with the USTA's rating system. Nobody knows where they fall within their respective rating spectrum. I've been a 4.5 for years, but I have no idea where I am relative to other players.

One of the concerns with the Tencap system is that they thought it would encourage sandbagging to keep a rating where it is. But I've honestly never seen that happen.

Click to expand...

Nobody knows their exact rating by design. Trust me, if you applied this to the USTA, people would abuse it. The vast majority wouldn't, but those hell bent on sectionals and nationals would. Want to make sure that all your self rate players are available for playoffs? This would make it incredibly easy to manage your scores so they are available. Worried that some on your team may get a bump for ESR or end of year? Now you know exactly what you need to do and how close you are to adjust your scores. No more guessing. A tencap system would work well for a local league where people are actually trying to move up levels, but not for USTA where people are trying to stay put at their level for playoffs.

In USTA most people know where they stand in their rating level- upper, mid or lower just by how they do in their matches. That is good enough IMO.

I've said this for years but the USTA should go to a dynamic rating system. Where I live, there's a rating system called Tencap. They use it in a few other cities as well. It adjusts on the fly as you complete matches. It's kind of like a golf handicap. The lower the rating, the better the player. And they have divisions that encompass rating ranges. For instance...

The Men's Blue Division is for players rated between 22-28; which is typically a 4.5 level. If a 28 rated player plays a 22 rated player and wins 6-4, 6-4, their rating will go up accordingly and the losing player's rating will go down accordingly. Vice versa, if the 22 rated player wins, but let's say it's in three sets, their rating could still go down (because the match was close).

I've been playing Tencap for about 10 years and the system is far more accurate. And you can see exactly where you are relative to other players. This is one of the problems I see with the USTA's rating system. Nobody knows where they fall within their respective rating spectrum. I've been a 4.5 for years, but I have no idea where I am relative to other players.

One of the concerns with the Tencap system is that they thought it would encourage sandbagging to keep a rating where it is. But I've honestly never seen that happen.

Click to expand...

You make some excellent points that I agree with. But what the USTA uses is a dynamic system that adjusts ratings with every match played, the USTA just chooses to update the public record once (or twice for sections with early start leagues) a year as well as just publicize the rating to the half point. So it is really the lack of transparency that is the issue.

Regarding knowing where one stands, I'm sure the USTA would argue that as long as you are rated such that you are at a level where play is competitive, you don't need to know more details. I disagree which is why I do my estimated dynamic NTRP ratings. If you want to know where you are relative to your level, let me know!

Regarding sandbagging, clearly we know that having a less transparent system with NTRP doesn't get rid of sandbagging, so I don't think that is an argument in the NTRPs favor.

Of course, we can also debate the merits of the USTA's algorithm vs the Tencap one, but that is I believe a separate discussion.

does the tri-level leagues matter about getting bup up or down? Asking because I played 4 matches at 4.5 all won ( one of them defoulted) plus I won a 4.0 tourney in January and I still are the same 4.0.
It does not really matter to me but I was just curious.

Click to expand...

Depending on the section/district you are in, tri-level may or may not be included in determining your NTRP level.

And it isn't just winning or losing that influences your dynamic rating, but the full score (game differential) and who specifically you play and their dynamic rating when you play them. If you happened to win a lot of matches but against lower rated players or players playing up, your rating may not improve as much as you think it might.